ii::;;!(j^i!ftMi;i,iw.



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois



http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat214illi



BOUND JUL. 3.0. .1053.,



842 « 2459S /

V.., ?. URBW 4 COitl»A»Y, Inc.. ) / ''

> Appellant, } /

) / OV COOK oowKT-y,

Appellee, )/

Tiiia is Hti ntV'^u^ by plnintifT frcfr. * ,iu uiii6ot of
the i..:i.rouit court oi' cock 'cu'Ay ..r. ttkTror ot "•■

The plaintiff, , , i'jr«w ^ Coet.
ault to reooTttr the differ once D«^twe«n the ec
12 carloads of caustic •odA, wraci. it was all .
ration u«r!f«miant hud at-Teta to deliver from Jmxi
]xjl6, tc plaintiff, sxnri the aioricet frice of ao4*
purciiseed upon a rffaa»l of defendant to perforw tlM \.

written contract, A plea of th© general ioewe w*8 fil«d eu

i

ported by nn tiffidfiyit of merits, in w.,ich it wb* All«ir«u *,;
the vfritten inatrxraent referred to in the deel«rr»tlon wae » >i
mesaornndiuB of a oale contract "yhicii hnd by oral nsgri^effient ;.•-
entered into by and betwesrs the rlnintiff »n''> dtrf eiidarjt; t.se
defendar.t, it is alleged, ^ms nctinf n>-') •/ •? >. h >lrl■V^'r fnr
aotuel «"1 * of the H>f«terinl ,

Therie i» n. direct nrui simrp conflict in t
dence »a tc wh»t was said in the course of te5*pi-e<\' c<
tiens betvievtii :, F, ;jrew, yre.'iident of plnintifl, and T
5 . rurrell on the one part, and silliaja c, Me^insuM,
the defentiHiJt, on the o<.iier« Xhe defeudftnt is a ii^frcj
LiTok*^r doin(>, bu»lness in Ohioago, lllmcis, in &
glycerine an ■■ - ^. - Ms. ■ f ' " :f'%ifi' , h ~ €•??




4> ^1 *>




1^ ♦rr i






is » general Merchant nnd depl s in chpwicala mnd other co.vimedltlwi
includllng oauatic eoda.

The eTidenc© tends to prove that the defendant hftd at
prcTlous timeB ftoteti ao » broker for plRintiff, f^n AuRuet 7,
1915, defendent'a aiannRer, r, nickinson, in a televhcne con-
vereation with ur, ijurrell offered to sell plaintiff oaastic
soda at ^2,25 per hundred pounda f. o. b. ' ur] in.':ton, l«,
ur. Burr ell rfe8i:ondeci by offering a price of $1,80 flat per 100
pounds; in reply to which : r, J3icicinson et?ited tfmt tae offer
vas low, but that he «rould aec what he cculd dc about the osat-
ter. Following tl^iia conTeraation ; r. Dlckineon telegraphed
to the Churchill !)rug comptkny at -urlington, la,, nnd en the
â– ame day received a lon^ diatAnce tel erhone reply thereto frofli
a representative of the BrujE? company. On Auf^uet 9, 1915, ,*>t,
Dickinaon telegraphed plaintiff, "Can you bett'?r vour bid on
eauetic? Think can buy pt Z^ Burllnfrton, Vslt'^r '*, rirk," oov
the fcllowlnft day the plnintiff by tel<?gmi« inUoftted a refusal
to pay mora than tU,80 for the /snterial . m the aame day V-t,
Dickinson sent n telegraja to the Churchill r>rug Company; thie
telegram was excluded on objection of plM.intiff. (n the saaa
4ay, Auguet 10, 1915, Ux, Bicicineon had a long diatanoa tele-
phone oonf eraation with ir. Drew, and a material diaj-ute of fact
in the ease ooncama wuat was said in the course of tiiie oon7er«a
tion.

Ir, Dickinson testified tliat Kr. 3)rew informed hia
the ocda wne to b«? shipped to Kew York; that he, the witness,
informed i:r. Drew of a te! ^^rhone converaetion which the witness
bad had with T r. F.aetings of the Churchill »rug Ccisr«ny; that
V..t, Haetings, upon learning tJiat plaintiff was the purohaaer and






tliat the goods were to be ahipped to Ti«« York* etnted that the
•»1< could not be mnde in the name of the Churchill 'jrug Company
because of an «grcei?j<?nt existing betiereen tiiat ooiopnny and certain
New York dealers; that if the otRterial could be billed in defend-
ant's n»ae, he, f.r. Jiastinge, would s&Bke the sale and would agree
not to held defendant responsible; that ii«, liaatinga, ivould look
to the plaintiff as the buyer. The witness ti^stified ulao that
he inforraed ? r, IWew thst th«? errle 'wuld bp pjnde upon tiiese teras,
providing vr, "^rew would not hold defendant rwaponaible; tiiat !vr.
Drew responded by fsayiwp;, •Go ahead and booi< th«» a"l e, ,ve know
the Churchill T>rug Ooa^pany, t^:«v nr<? bH rii-:ht and we wcn»t hold
you responsible, but will IccV to th^^ ae'lt^r"; tiiat rr, tsrew then
requeetcd the witness to send a cf -jcrandum ofl aale. h:r. Drew
testified that he reQU*»eted ir. Dickinson to acno hm a confirma-
tion of thf sale; this conf ir«ai>tlon, or whatever it :hf\y be called.
Is as follows:

"T;ot Liable in 'maaKea for any Failure or 'elay of Oc-
liveries Ariaing frum .>trikes« Accidents, or other Causes
beyond lay Control,

original .

Telephone j'abash 2o9G,
527 South Lf)i>all e it,
'A'altRr H. Kirk,

Oils, Pats,
Glycerin*, Chea^icals, Chicago, Aug. Ii/l5

Sold for Jjyaelf,

To K. F. T)rew .>- re., inc., 5C^ Broad -tr,, 'f?w ^ork, ' . Y,
C;.uantity Ti^elve (12) carl onds of caustic iioda

qunllty 76' stock

J"il^iip!?}fmt 7-wo (2) oars monthly January-^'une mcluairs

1916.
Irice ?1,B0 p<»r one hundred pounds, f.o.b, 'ur-

linpton, lewa.bnais of frelf<ht for sVilpment to
>?ew ^fork fl ,8C (bnels 605)

T«rn:s Usual

Brrkcr#«i\-e "on* (ICc r,3,>'MypMue ■jto.mp stamped ">V,H,K,

AUK.IC, 191 5").
This contract is leaued in Triplicate; One for the Buyer, One
for the iieller, and Cne is being kept on ?ile in ay office,

w'alter H, >irk,
j.'o. yl'ib"!) f'i C, yickiriBon,"



/'



V.r, Drew df^rled that anything wi».» said in tJie course

of the oonvfir»Rtlon Indicating that defendant w»a Bcting for a

principal, ilia t*»8ti.vony Ib *.c the effisct th*»t he d^alt directly

with the defmidmit through rr, T'lckinscn; thRt nethlnf!; was fftid

In the course of the telephon«» conTereatlon of August iri, 1915»

oonceminp the Churchill !>r».t^ C!omp9ny; that at the cloaw of tlie

conrerss'tion he r«»que3i;.rd 'y, ^IcVinBon to send ft written confir-

BAtion cayerint: tho trttns^s^ctlon; thPt the cenf irraation ebOYS set

out was received hy him, the i^itnees, on Aufrust 13, 191b; that on

August 10, Idlu, tiie 4ef exidtint wrote plaintiff as follows:

•Chicago, Aug, 10/X5
£, P, Brew & Co., Inc.,
aew York, *'â– â–  , Y,

Gentlesjen:

I recelTSd your telee^aa of this Kioming readini;
as follows:

♦one eighty is utiaoat '.re can pny cnuatic January
June hftjjis aixty >url lni;ton.*

and this ia to confirm 'phonft eonver»Rtion with your Ir. Drew
this morning wherein I inouired if thia CaustiG ooda is to go
to 'ew York, r?8 T wished to kno^sr fchiss on account of figuring
frei<<lit r?4tes, nnd he; »t,nt?d that it ia, no v?ired you later aa
per enclosed copy and hsrewith hand you my ocnf irrsiation |136-D
tc cover.

Thanking you verv kindly for this order, 1 reasain
Youra truly,

;^»lter n. Kirk,
'^.G.Dleicineon,"

Cn the sasfie day defendant sent the telegrnm follovrinf: to

plaintiff:

"As per pii' ne ccnveroRtion confirm two cera seTrenty-
six cauotio ffionthly J&nuary Jurve inclusive one-<ei/5;hty bwais
sixty f.o.b, Burlington, basia for .hipiBBent to Kew York,

Walter P,. Kirk."

On Auii;u8t II, l^lb, the defendant sent Uie following letter to

plaintiff:

•Heferring to ay oonf iraatlon of "D«15e" ooveriB*
Caustio iioda, i presuae you untierstnnd that 1 sm merely
bluing tl^ls for my undiaclo&ed principal who is a per-
fectly responsible party.

Thanking you for the business, 1 remain
Yours very truly,

falter H, Klric,'



Cn P«o«h]|«v go, 1915, the plHxntiff by tel«graia di-
rected the defendant tc ship the soda oontraoted for, *two c&rloada
JBontlily Jan/june, please mev that theee are aiilpped i «r ccntraot

to New York,* in ejiawer to tnie telegriufc the def6nd»?it on ')ecein-

Her 4,2, 191 ;>, -.vrote plaintiff »s foliowe:

"Your foYor of the Soth inet, received and noted, wiioh
I have rut before Tue Churdiill T)rug Co, for attention,"

• r, Tsrew testified thut, he Vnew nothing of the
Churc/^ill :?ruF: rompnny^s alleged connection with the tranaaoticn
prior to the dste that th» above cojESi:r,unicRtion wna received by
plaintiff, «tirther ccrrearondence and tele^rars in the record
diflclose thut on or about 7ebriAttry 15, 1916, the rlaintiff wae
unable to procure the acda agrofMl to he .lei ivered tc it under the
contrect b*>tween the p»*rtle0, nnd thnt at t)-.i8 tirae a nhBrj- con-
troversy nroaa between plaintiff and defendant aa to who viras le-
gally lioble for the failure to comT-lv »ith the terrRS of the con-
tract.

in our opinion tue judgment d;>c5ala b© reversed ftnd
th*? unuae reuionded tc tiie lAwer ccurt for a new trial, fe vrill not
therefore exireaa anyti:intj «a to the weight of the evidence offered
on tiie trial furtuer than to say that exee] tin^ the theory of de-
fendant titHt the Cliurchill furug Co.^pany ma mentioned in the tel e-
phone oonveraation of August 10, 19la, ae the seller in the trans-
aetion and thwt defendant vme referred to therein as its aK^nt,
there is notninif in the evidence or oorrearondence whic?. tends to
■hey/ that the plaintiff was informed thnt th<» druR ccB-pnny was
oonneeted is-ith th«» transaction until about the time plnintiff began
to preea the defendant for a delivery of the soda under contract.
In the letter dated August II, 191&, the plaintiff does «:ieert that
he was acting in the aintter for nn undiaclootd principal.



^n9in:^ui,



7li« n«t«rlal di«put« betveen tlie |>Kr%i*« it m« %•
wbAt VMS «Ai4 during the» course of the %«1 c^phone converaMtlon of
AiMpi«t 10, 1915, 'i'he plaintiff Rsserts that h« a«de the oontr»et
directly -sith the defendant nnd t}:i»t nothinj' was Sfio \)y th« par-
tie* fta to a third peTBcn, or th«t defendmnt wna aotiuf; for a
principal. On the oth«r hnnd, tho cJ<»f en<l»nt' a position la that
til* pXmlntiff waa directly inferrsed in the course of the oor.Tor-
sation th«t defendant wa» aoting »«rely as an agent, Th« de-
tenainfttion th«n of this, a sharply contested question of fact,
vaa the real Ittsue in the CH»e, A» a matter of Inw if Uw d«-
fendant hod acted a» agent for an uridiacloaed principal, plaintiff
Ki^it still pursue his asiion aijainat defeno$int, or, if he saw fit
io do so» ai^ainst the undisclosed principal in the ease.

In the case of ^.udl^eae. n v. i,-, »f f enb^rg , lwi> ill, App.
463, it vras held that ^^hert one undertftkes to contract as agent
for an undisclosed principal in a mnnner not uinaing tiie principal
hs bfNiomes personally llnble tmA that k& omnnot exonerate himsel/
by shoeing an authority to binrl ono for whom he has undertaken to
««t.

l^atfTver may be said a.o tc the inherent chsiracter
•f the instrument of Auf^ust Ic, 1915, know on the trial as
"l56-i5*, it is cl-^ar that it was executed hy the defi^ridant and
gaTr« in p«rt hlj» version of the telei:hcn«4 ccnv^rsation, Ahieh de-
fendant asserts exprasoed the terms of the contract b«stT«reen the
l^arties. This in&tnuaent on its f;-ce purpovta to bind the iSe-
fsOidant only. liowevsr, if it be aasuwed that it waa fr. A.cre ric.'.;o-
randum of the sale contract agreed to in the, tel ephooe conversa-
tion, then the trial court should have liioited the intrcductlsa
Sf evidence to aucii ws tended to indicate what was $tta-efd to by
the parties thereto. The record sixows, however, that the court
•doilttcd, over the objection of plaintiff, wuch cvidenos tending



to show that tJi« a«f«ndant "^ae in f»>ct tue agent of the ChssaicRl
IXrufi Company. i*:nri(l«no« w«b trroneouely adinitted of tel«pi5ona con-
Tttrsatlons betve«n ttie d«feiidimt and tke drug company cccuxrlng
«om€^tlfii« after August 10, 1915, mxicn oannot be ocnoidered in
any tienee a part of the rgft ^.8»tft » of th* ca&c. it flitiy be aaeutaftd
that the defendant wr« acting tor the Cket^iical Drug Competiy , Tha
diaputed <iu«atlon on th« trial, ho«eTer, was whether the defendant
had disclosed hia agency to the plaintiff. JWen the letter of
Auguot 11,, iyi5, merely assarts thnt the defendant rraa acting for
an undisoToaed prineipal and If hie lHn/;?:u«tpe ^c taker* as it -^mM
mrittan it coul-l not release him as a party to L*i« contract,
|?ean v. Dunk in , 17 ni. 272,

iZhilB it is apparent that th<» trial court attrr^ptedi
to lliait the adciiaBion of fvider'ce to the ^mt^rtal i^sua ^hioh the
Jury vas called upon to deter^cine, eviuence vae adt;itted of a
aeries of telegrams hfitween the drug co-j-pany and defendant, ')e-
faniiant insista that the plaintiff was inforaied of the f'<ct th»t
Aefenoant w»a aetin^^ for the Churchill Drug Uonpany, but tiiat its
dsabe ma Ipept out of tiie trftn^aactlcn because of a certain a^rreeisent
jshieh it had with other dealers, rhis fact was ex],reoely denied
"by the plaintiff, and hence eTidence that telegrar-s ?J©re transmitted
between the defendant and the drug oojapeiriy and that conTersationa
were hsd between the defendant, or hia rjf/ent, and »p:^:\t3 of tha
drug cojap«ny, necessarily tended to keep tha drug cannnnv's actual
Interest in the tranaaetion hpfor« the jury,

1>T, ')ioirinson, defendant'.'. 9tr,crt, 'sraa reri-Jint-sfl to
testify that prior to Aufruat 1' , 1916, the plaintiff hsd purchasad
soda through defendant frwr? the ChurC'sill "»ug Corapfiny; and alaa
»■ t» what steps had been taken by tne witness to supply the soda,
eoatraeted for by rinintiff, from the drug odspany. ? uinerous oues-
tions were asked and answers <;iiven touching the relations of the de-
fattdant with the dru^; coispany, which should hnve bean excluded.



tfe«y irer« pre,1udlci(«l . in Uiat it !» reaaonablc; to soppoes that
the oonttlAiit rttiteratlon in the preaenc« of the Jury of oiattcrt
eenoornlng volely defendant 'o ageiiny t^r the drug oompKny mlKht
have led the Jury to conclude that this B)ett«>r was an laeue in
tbe case. The cofflAiunleations between the defendant and tiie drug
oompany did not tend to eorroborate the defendant's stAteriient
timt hia aijency for th« druff ooEipstny w»» disc1c»*?d to the plain-
tiff. The evidence ao adinitted wa« in th*? mnin aelf-eervinir, in
character and wh-^re ao lauci! of thc« record is i.aiten up 'sritb evi-
dence of thle 90 rt, we think the cause ahoul d be rtytriftd.

In the oaae of yriaJtee v, wTt , 1C9 111. App, 200, ft
caae in l/^tportant pttrticulara slsitilar to the o»@e rI n^r, the
oourt aaid:

"The obvloua purpoBe of thia evidence wes to cor-
roborate apyeXlee (defendant^ in iiIb version of Ui.e tj-Rn^jac-
tioo« tnat ia* tij.st he received the Jmiteta as ag«jnt only,
of the fttpellnnt (plaintiff), f(;r tiie purj oso of celling than
to Ralph, if poaaible, by ahowing that he {iftftrwarda ftttejj-ted
to do 90, tn think th« evidence as to tiie BtatftjiKsnta /;>ade by
appellee (defendant) to v<alph waa inco&petent and inadn«idiiib} e.
They '^ero iaade long aft«r the tranaoction and were tiH^refore
not a ynTt, of the rea fieotae , ^(?re Riade by aj-pellee in hie own
behalf, r>ta& were seTT-aerving in their nature. 'it ie e ^;eneral
rule of broad appliostion, that the dec! nrpticns of r psrty in
hio own fnvor are not admlaalble i»i! his b»»n«lf,' {/onfe on
TV,, >ec, 236, page 541,)

In n cXoee cnse on tu» ffcta, t-.n ii? this, auch evi-
dence wae neoeaaarily prejudicial.*

li'or the error of th«3 trial court in r^dmittlng the evl-

4«ncp referred to th* Judgment vfiii be reversed and th*? cnuse re-

asanded for a new trial.



'it^ " <»4613



â– LILI.IAK U, J0BU30H,

Appellant*

WAIP^K -v'.laKAff LIVRRY COJ/J-AJJ^. )
» corporation,

App«ll*«.



) a.i/t;ai, smcfcs aiHOiii? ov.xmr
)

) # OF COOK C{.'UNTy.





^^4 1^,^26"-



un, iKRSinjFC JUSTICE r>inrm

Thlt is an atpffAi by plaintiff rro« a Judgaent of
tii« Circuit Court of jock County in aer fftvor «nd againot de-
fendant for t2;e sum of ^9^9. W9,

1-laintiff brought suit against dofeiidunt for
diaoagsa arisinti froa personal injuries recexved by her on
April 9, 1916, miile riding in a public taxicab o-fmnd and
operntfid by defendant, it iu insisted on ber.ulf of plPiritiff
that the ferdict of the Jury and Judjis'-riit oi" tkie trial court
is inadequj!)te oosapenaatlon for the injuries which one claimed
She rec*^iYed as the re»ult of all^^ged negllfMice on the part
of defendant.

As the Judwaent is to bp rf?7<jraecS nnl th*" cause
resmnded for a new trial , we 00 not c'»r(» to express any opin-
ion 88 to the fflorlt of thlo contention otrjer trmn to bp.v tj:Rt
it 1» (iifficult to dcterjBlne by whnt procesa of r«>n8oning the
Jury arrived at the j«oulx*«r v«.*rdict ri?nuRr<?u in the onuse,
Tven if it be conceded ttiat the verdict of ine Jury y*9.» in>
adequate compensation for the injuries >«hiuh the eYidenoe suews
plaintiff sustained, «e are not ready to r.cld thnt it was so
auoh 80 as to indicate pasuion or prtjuuice on tKe vart of the
Jury. Thrt oiction was for uiiiiauiaated da;aaf:es and a reyiexing



court will nut Interfere «vith iiie a«ter;%iination of the riuestlon
of dafflftg«« by the jury unless it »ji|:e«r8 Uujt the verdict is
a&riifestly x^rong or that- it i& %.:.« result of pnssicn or jzreju-
*^*'*» J^ ;Ourke v, Ang l o •> Aa c. r x cwn i roy . -. c , , 9^ 111, Ap> . <^6,

Thfi testimony of the â– sitneos .r. iarsohf, wno at-
tended tho plaintiff, as to the fair, reaaonaiule, usual and cus-
tomnry charges for bis senrices. was not r*dsiltted for masons
aliich are not Knde quite clear by th«» «*T)fidence «» fthstracted,
A part of the examlnntlon of Dr. Inrsche is na foJlO'^a:

♦•Cl, '*hat Is the fair, r«n»onable, usual and cuo-
toiKsry OiiMrt^e by rf^putRfcle phyaicisrss in f'hlca.ii-ro, in the lo-
cality wh«?re yen p<'rfcrm«d the services, for the services you
r«»nuer«»ti i'or Mrs. JoJu* en, the plaintiff in thi'8 case, p«r-
tftinint>; tc the iajarieu she received on April 9, 1916?"

'*XU. E£HQ£: X object to the question, unl«?ss it is

on tut; proG.iae of counael to fellow it up ^Y proj>e.r proof,
conneonn^'. it up,*

"THi: COUHT: l think i will auatain the objection,

unless you can tHA-o^pt tiiat ;.ru. «iOii.n;»on j.;erscnci.liy ^uid it, or
aaaaased the bill,"

"i^H, IVIillETT: I have never understocd t^iat it is
nsoiisaairy for us to show th{%t,"

"1 rendered tiiia service for tvro. Jonn.»on, i
oharged these servicer to Alex. Johnaon, hsr huaband."

•urn. HJTKRKTT: ^cw, I ?'8i: that the question be
answered . **

•|:H, KTJHOK: I obj<?»ot to it new, b(?c?>u»e tr.is
question does not riiak<» it cc-ripptent,*

•TH)? COm^T: 1 made a rulinr^ on it, bf^cau^e I
]ca«« of no ease which would allow a wife to rf»cover for loss
to th« husband In her bringing the suit, I doubt w)ipt)ier any
law, whrther in Inw or in ronuon, a wife ouf-ht to be perrUtted
to recover in hf>r o«n suit for a loss that tas h"d by her hus-
band,"

it i» difficult to determine fro» the above quoted
portion of the record ^yaether the trin.1 court ruled out the evi-
dence offered by the witness as to the vnJue ol hia services on
the theory that it was incuaibent on the plaxntiif to ai.ow that
she had personally paid tne bill, or tiiat by aoaie act or words



3v;io:i



she had asaiioted an obliKrition to ptny it. The ^itnMs Mii4 h*

rendered the wervices for the plaintiff, but had chBT<;ed her
husbatid for them. If the aervicee w<»re In fact r«ridprcd to
plaintiff, then she beoncte prlasarily linble therefor nnd thle
is «o irrefjpective of her merital relAtionehip, if the liAbUity
to pay the doctor for hiu servioet v^ae e^n obllr.ution impoited
prlKRrily upon plaintiff ♦« husband she would «tn i be liable
therefor under the statute as iiia wife, .fhere it njjsnre, rae
it doeu h«re, thst the aerviceu were renders J to a jlsintiff who
becaose thereby priis«rily liabl(.; ior their fair yhj uc, such
plaintiff ia not required before UiC eviaence f>.a to the vrOue of
•uoh eervicee beccriea ad issicle to uhc?/ that uhe h»d either paid
ox had per8on»lly assumed payascnt therefor.

It is argued thnt, the question put to the witneai
was faulty in tupt it vfun »o fr^uied th«t nn smswer responsive to
it 'fould include an Buau-r^ion or pn irxpresoior; of oplniov; by
the witness tUHt the injuri-^s for which hf^. imd %rent<^<i pj?».intiff
were caueed by the accident which occurred or April 3, 1916.
Th^re ia no diarute in thi^ eTidencc thot the plaintiff received
certBin injuriea on April 9, 1916, and thnt the doctor rendered
eervicee for ncr in relation tc those injuries. The inquiry waa
R8 to the value of aervicca r<ndered y tr^e doctor for the
plaintiff "pertaininti to the Injurlets ehe received on April 9,
1916;* thia question doeo not, aa ur^ed, cRll lor nn cpirsion of
the -witneaa aa to whether the injuries for miicn. he nt tended
plaintiff reaulted from the accident, it v»«8 competent for the
doctor to t testify thnt tne aervicea rendered to pi«intiff were
for injuriee T»hich »he received on April s>, 1916, Ihere ie
nothin/s; in the queetion which cplls tar an opinion as to whether
theae injuriea, or plaintiff »a aubaequent condition, wiiwre the
reault of the accident or of soiae other oauae.



On anotiier trial of the case the pre»«nt difficulty
no doul»t wiM be obviated by the introduction of evidence wnich
will r«jc&ovt any doubt as to the ndmlesibil ity of Vuitf evidence.
On the record before ue «Te thinlt the teotlioDny of tj.ia witness as
to the value of the services wtiloh were rendered to thr j:lftintiff
was RdfliieBible.

It ^¥il1 not bfv r<eces«n.rv to conBider other questions
presentf-ci ns for the rfinscr stnt^^ the .1u',lt::ffif;'nt of the Circuit
Court fiiust be reversed and th^ cuuen? re;*.nn<1.<^d t,c tii?»t court for a
new trial,

KJ^VKJltJfiQ ARD EMfe'AKl}153.



328 - 24679



WILLIAltv lx)«fKi),

I Appellant,

CHICAGO IfMsTER 3T5y^;yiTT#S A3aOClAYIOK,

HARFlSOK.CriAHLI-'a J0HK30|r, JOKII MANGAK ^ 1

CHAKLT'S UAI^^JGHT: DIJRKI^, JA^iES CHlUaTlAH- )

80» and 'rH01i*yii3 COCK, / )
kppelleet




A.>iMl> FhOii Ci«CUIT
COUKT OF COOr GOUMTY.



pp., yw.simvo juuticf oi?ver

D3SI.I'/ER2D TI»E Ott!'IOK OF T.T' GOXlV'S ,



214 I.A. 626



3



Thl8 is an appeal fros^ P.n order of the Circuit court
of Cook County dlarsissing the bill of ccfn-jrlaint filed by 'Vllllaji
Bowne, complainant, a£Rin8t Chicago Vaster Stearof i tters Aaeocia-
tlori (to bf hereinafter referred tc as the *A»aoci«,tion* ) , prank
Bonohuft, Alex Fairehlld, ¥,Ii. Harrison, Charles Johnecn, John l/:an-
gan, Charles ]iau,john Durkin, James Christiansen and fi^o^aas Cook,
defendants.

The bill alleges that the cofsiplainant during the
years 1917 and 1916 was ent:aKed in the dub In ess of installing
plujflbiug and hooting fixtures in certnin large buildings in Chi-
oagc p.nd thg»t he would h/Ave received large /ains tnerefrom but
for certain unfair ind unlawful nets of defendants.

The bill chnrRes that the meaabership of the Associa-
tion consists of contractors engaged in the steaaaf ittlng and stewn-
heating buelneas; that it had entered into an agreecient with the
Steaafitters irotectivs Association, local union 597 (to be hfsrein-
after referred tc as the "Union"), flrr.ich agreement, though not un-
lawful upon ita face, was entered into for the purpose of suppressing
coiapetition ?>nd creating;; a laonopoly in the stearaf itting and steam-
heating business.

The bill also charges that laws enacted by the iiitate of
Illlnoia and ita cities, villages and towns provide rules and regu*



Intlons for the installing of heating and plvuTilaing fixtures in
buildings; that complAinant hnd at all tiraea complied with these
laws; thnt the Association under certain of its by-laws had ©n-
deayored to create a monOT'Oly an'i contrni of saiti busineas; that
ofiction 5 of Article 3 of its by-laws provides for a 3t»nd»rdiaa-
tion Cffiwmiittec, whoae concljHicna an-i rftccmnenifl tions were to be
followed by the members of the Association "in the .7ork in which
they ruay be en^afred, and to coitpel the atnndardB so created to be
accepted and followed by members in other similar lines;" that
the com/:^ittee waa autiiurized to appoint an engineer to whom the
aambers of the Association were required to 3ubn:it al i working
plans for inspection and approTal; that when approved by hijzi auch
plans were to be staj.iped and that he was thereafter to irjupect the